Andrea Tornielli writes about it, and I am posting his article now... Apparently, the FSSPX has its own internal 'plumbing malfunction' because photocopies have been posted online of a two-page letter dated April 7 from the three other bishops of the FSSPX to the fourth bishop and their Superior-General, Mons. Bernard Fellay, and his April 14 4-page reply to them. [Qui bono from such a leak? Methinks it's the three bishops behind it!] The letters make very clear that Fellay had decided to bring the FSSPX back to the fold, whereas the three other bishops are absolutely opposed to any such reconciliation, Mons. Fellay's unequivocal terms in replying to them are fascinating - and I will post the translations ASAP.
While Tornielli entitles his piece 'The internal battle', I think the battle is over, because Fellay has given his response to Rome, and the Holy Father will probably accept it. The only question is whether the three bishops (the controversial Mons. Williamson, who never hid his disdain for the doctrinal discussions held in Rome; Mons. Galarreta, who ironically headed the FSSPX theological panel to the discussions; and Mons. Tissier de Mallerais) have enough influence among the various FSSPX districts and seminaries to get a significant number of followers to join them in their all-but-formal schism.
Letters reveal 'internal battle'
in the FSSPX on dealing with Rome
by Andrea Tornielli
Translated from the Italian service of
May 10, 2012
A website has published the letters exchanged last month between Bishops Tissier de Mallerais, Alfonso de Galarreta and Richard Williamson, and their Superior-General, Mons. Bernard Fellay.
The April 7 letter from the three bishops contains a peremptory call for Fellay not to sign the doctrinal preamble and not to accept the reconciliation offered by the Holy See which would give the FSSPX the canonical status of a personal prelature within the Church.
"The dostrinal discussions", they write Fellay, "have proven that an agreement is impossible with Rome" because "
after Vatican II, the official authorities of the Church diverged from Catholic truths and today they are as determined as ever to remain loyal to the doctrine and practice of that Council".
They use statements supposedly made by FSSSPX founder Mons. Marcel Lefebvre a few months before he died to bolster their arguments. Such as: "The problem is not with specific errors in the individual Council documents, but rather a total perversion of the spirit [of the Council], with a completely new philosophy based on subjectivism".
The three dissenters say, "Even the thinking of the present Pope is impregnated with subjectivism - all the subjective fantasy of man in place of the objective reality of God, all of Catholicism subjected to the modern world".
[They are truly delusional! Have these characters ever read Benedict XVI or listen to what he has been saying all these decades? Or do they just choose to see nothing good at all about Rome and this Pope?]
"How can we believe," they ask, "that any practical agreement could resolve this problem?... They are accepting us in the name of a pluralistic and dialectic pluralism. They can tolerate that the FSSPX continues to teach Catholic doctrine while they refuse to condemn
the doctrine of Vatican II".
[Vatican II never proposed any new doctrine. It was a pastoral council and the four major points disputed by the FSSPX - religious freedom, inter-religious dialog, ecumenism and collegiality - are all new pastoral attitudes towards the rest of the world (in the case of the first 3) and the relationship between the Pope and bishops, in the case of the fourth.]
They also quote Mons. Lefebvre as saying, "It is dangerous to place ourselves in the hands of Conciliar bishops and of modernist Rome", and conclude by telling Fellay: "You are leading the Fraternity to the point of no return, to a profound division", and predict that an agreement with Rome will end by destroying the Fraternity.
Fellay responds with a long and detailed letter, which is very interesting and significant in view of what is about to happen to the FSSPX, which is now on the verge of an agreement with the Holy See.
The Superior reminds his fellow bishops that
"The Church still has Jesus Christ as its head. But one has the impression that you are so scandalized [by what has been happening] that you can no longer accept that this could still be true."
"Do you consider Benedict XVI a legitimate Pope? If he is, can Jesus Christ not speak through him? If the Pope expresses a legitimate will that concerns us, which is good, and which does not violate the commandments of God in any way, do we have the right to reject him, to cast aside his good will? Do you not believe that if the Lord guides us, he will also give us the means to continue our work?"
"The Pope has let us know that his concern to regularize our situation for the good of the Church is among the things at the heart of his Pontificate... (although) he knows that it would have been much easier for him and for us to just leave things as they are...
"Your idea of the Church is too human and fatalistic. You see dangers, conspiracies, difficulties, but you no longer see the role of grace and the Holy Spirit...
Do not transform the errors of the Council into super-heresies, so that they become an absolute evil, in the very same way that the liberals have dogmatized a pastoral council. [Very well put, Mons. Fellay!] The objections we have are already dramatic enough, and we must not exaggerate them."
Finally, Fellay invites his three bishops to admit that the proposed personal prelature is quite different from the proposals made to Lefebvre in 1988 - "To pretend that nothing has changed since then is an error". And asks them to
consider that the serious problems of the Church have never been resolved overnight but only gradually and slowly.
What significance do these letters have, and above all, could they possibly interfere with the process now under way?
[Obviously not, because Fellay's reply to them was dated the day before he submitted his 'final answer' to Rome.]
It would seem not at all. But what they do is to provide a snapshot of something already known, which is the existence of profoundly diverse positions within the Fraternity. However, the responsibility for the dialogues and negotiating with Rome is in the hands of Fellay and his general assistants.
They have made their decision and we must wait some more days to learn the recommendations of the cardinals and bishops making up the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and Pope Benedict XVI's final decision.
All signs are that this will be known before the end of the month, when we shall see if and how the other three bishops will come around.
[Their mind appears so closed it's hard to imagine that they will!]
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 11/05/2012 04:35]